Only about one person in five supports banning guns. Which is why the right constantly uses it against Democrats, and why the Democrats have finally started to learn not to lick the wires. It's incredibly unpopular, and the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" was credited by no less than Bill Clinton as one of the major reasons the Democrats got slaughtered in that election.

But never once have conservatives placed a gun control issue on the ballot. This is because they know it will lose, and they correctly claim that we don't vote on our rights.

As I pointed out in the subject line, this is not a post about the right to own firearms. It's about the hypocracy of the right to use the courts when convenient, and disregard them when they don't like what they hear.

If you can find one case where a gun control issue was on a ballot, I'd like to see it. Lobby groups have the ability to place these issues on the ballot and have never done it. If it was a slam dunk as you imply it would be common.

Stop being so sefishly defensive. This post isn't about taking your right to own a firearm away. It's not always about you.

And no, actually "lobby groups" cannot place issues on the ballot. Almost no states have referendum laws that work that way. In fact, California is pretty much the only one. But you're attempting to move the goalpost in order to ignore the fact that candidates who run on gun control almost always lose hugely. Flip your own argument around--if gun control were popular, wouldn't it be run on as a campaign issue and have ballot referendums in every state passing new restrictions?

The reality is fairly apparent. If you don't believe me, check the polling.







http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

God damn it.

I make a freaking post about right wing hypocracy concerning everything from marriage rights and abortion to capital punishment, and all you see is someone trying to take your guns away. Nice hijack.

I've never wished so much I just stayed in bed on a Sunday afternoon.

The bigger picture (hypocracy) seems to just support the gun control point.

But I wouldn't say you're trying to take guns away. Just advocating an up/down popular vote on it.

I have a modest collection of old single action Colts and a couple nice 90 year old autos.

The fact that you read an anti-gun message into my post questions how you determined this to be about anything other than right wing hypocracy when it comes to what they call "judicial activism". You could have read another paragraph and said "another GLBT post", or "here we go again with the capital punishment issue".

My post was actually inspired by Rick Santorum on Meet The Press today when he said the people in California should be able to vote on what they feel is constitutional. I knew immediately he'd never make that statement at the NRA or the National Right To Life Organization.

I admit I didn't consider the passion that goes with any discussion where gun control is even mentioned, and perhaps I should have titled the post "Right Wing Judicial Hypocracy". I might have saved myself some frustration in making my point, and others the trouble of amassing irrelevent data.

Mental dyslexia.

As far as the people of California voting on what should be constitutional, that's the way to do it. They just need 3/4 of the states to agree with them. And get past some kerfuffle in Congress. Piece of cake.

I usually stay away from all gun issues, 'cause you folks are vociferous in your debates about them...but, yeah, I read the post as the OP using gun control as an example of something that the Repubs would never use as a referendum.

Your post was based on the premise that the right wouldn't go for a referendum since they'd "obviously" lose. That's not true. If you don't want to be called on the fact that your premise is flawed, maybe you should have vetted your facts a little bit better, or chosen a different analogy. Screaming at me and trying to make my point something it's not doesn't change the facts.

if they made the restrictions a little stricter...it seems to me that what ever the subject is, once it is made legal they keep wanting to let the laws get more liberal...now it is to the point that anything goes...having guns in churches,bars and just about anywhere...

You hear a lot of people talk about, for instance, how you should have to pass a background check before buying a gun, without knowing that that's already the law and has been for decades. Or talking about how we should restrict automatic weapons, when they've been restricted for almost 80 years. It's far from "anything goes." But case in point, most states have allowed firearms to be carried in places like churches and bars for years or decades, without causing problems.

lying at worst.

Lets face it. Anyone who wants a gun can get one through private sales in most states.

And criminals WILL ALWAYS have them.

At this point honest citizens deserve to own guns because anyone else can obtain them also.

any better.

I could argue it's about marriage rights or capital punishment. The post covers abortion and contraception in subsequent paragraphs, but you saw the first line and said: This guy either wants to take away or own guns. One could just as well say this post rightly belongs in religion or GLBT.

The post is about right wing hypocracy and their war against what they call "activist judges", and a complete read will reveal that.

I wish I just stayed in bed instead of posting an observation here. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you read that you thought took a position on whether gun control is good or bad, but I assure you I didn't mean to post an argument one way or the other on the issue.

I am just not a fan of religion (or the lack thereof and the cries of persecution from both sides) and gun threads (no matter how minute, gun threads tend to become all about the guns) in GD.

I really didn't see the hijack coming when I posted, and won't let it happen again.
I'm sorry I didn't just sleep in today.

...and attempts to manipulate the Courts in order to cover up their deceit.